The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent. The concern for competency to stand trial originated in the 1960, Supreme Court case, Dusky v. United States. Milton Dusky was a 33-year-old man who kidnapped and illegally transported Alison McQuery, a 15-year-old girl, across the Kansas state line. Driven alongside two other ... ... middle of paper ... ...ng experts to identify mental health symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and identifying if any instances of malingering are present. Evaluating a defendant is essential in understanding whether or not they are capable of following legal proceedings. If an individual is in fact found incompetent, attempts to restore competency are performed through treatments with medication or mental training about legal information that is vital for them to know in their case. It is imperative to acknowledge competency to stand trial cases in the legal system to not only ensure fairness in the courtroom, but offer mentally ill defendants an opportunity to have a lawful trial depending on their psychological state. Works Cited Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and Legal Psychology: Psychological Science Applied to Law. New York: Worth Publishers.
Fulero, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2009). Forensic psychology. (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
...from completely liking the impact their condition has on their behavior. Mentally handicapped respondents, particularly the individuals who are not fiscally well-to-do, are regularly spoken to by inadequate direction. They say courts frequently choose trial lawyers who are "excessively unpracticed, exhausted, or uninterested" to legitimately shield their customersand left their defendant to make their own particular shutting contentions. At last, mentally retarded respondents face members in the criminal equity framework including barrier lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and juries—who are inconceivably uninformed of the nature and importance of mental handicap, are regularly more concerned with the political and expert results of acquiring a "triumphant" death penalty sentence than genuinely acknowledging the impact this condition has on the indivudual's perception.
Welner M.D., Michael. "Competency to Stand Trial, Proceed Pro Se, Plea, Receive Sentenceing." n.d. The Forensic Panel. Web. 3 January 2014.
Lyman, D. Michael; Criminal Investigation, The Art and Science; 3rd edition, 2002 Prentice Hall. Pgs. 188-200.
This paper will discuss whether or not mentally retarded criminals should be held accountable for their actions with the punishment of execution when the crime is murder. I do not believe that mentally retarded criminals should have a blanket exemption from the death penalty because of their mental incapacity. Although all cases of murder involving a mentally retarded suspect are unique, the lives extinguished by these murderers are of no less value than those whose lives taken by mentally competent murderers. Presently, the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the execution of mentally retarded defendants and holds the belief that capital punishment does not violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Federal Constitution's eighth amendment (Wilson 345-346). While several states have passed laws exempting all mentally retarded defendants from execution, the Supreme Court has not changed its view on the matter (Shapiro, "Innocent, and": 43). Could it be that many states are focusing on the individual, while the Supreme Court is focusing on the crime itself? If this is the case, I have to agree with the Supreme Court. Law and justice must focus on what the person has done, not on who the person is.
For many years the public has fought with the idea that a mentally ill person should not be held accountable for criminal crimes (Allnutt, S., Samuels, A., & O'Driscoll, C. 2007). In states Montana, Idaho, and Utah, does not consent for the defendant to plea an insanity defense. The defendants must be capable to stand trial, but they do have the right to present evidence of a mental disease as evidence that they did not have the required intent ("A Crime Of Insanity - Insanity On Trial | FRONTLINE | PBS", n.d.). The state of Georgia uses a reformed style of the M'Naghten Rule ("The Insanity Defense Among the States - FindLaw", n.d.). Daniel M’Naghten was an Eng...
Lamb, H. R. (2004). Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: Some perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly, 108-126.
Competency is defined as whether an individual has sufficient present ability to perform necessary personal or legal functions. In 1960, Dusky v. United States was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. Since the Dusky case, it has been questioned if there should some flexibility in competency tests to stand trial. Meaning, if a defendant is facing very serious charges in case with complex facts, do they need to be more competent than someone with less serious charges?
Seltzer, T., 2005, ‘Mental health courts – A misguided attempt to address the criminal justice system’s unfair treatment of people with mental illnesses’, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 570-586.
In the following literature review, scholarly and peer-reviewed journals, articles from popular news media, and surveys have been synthesized to contribute to the conversation pertaining to forensics in pop culture in the courtroom and the overall criminal justice system. This conversation has become a growing topic of interest over just the past few years since these crime shows started appearing on the air. The rising popularity of this genre makes this research even more relevant to study to try to bring back justice in the courtroom.
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
Greenfield, D. (2007). Introduction to forensic psychology. issues and controversies in crime and justice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 35(2), 201-201-204,105-106.
... The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defendants. Whether the abnormality is internal, external or a diagnosed medical condition will play a significant role in which defence can be used. As defences, they are all used for a similar reason, and that is to eliminate or reduce liability for criminal offences.
Comorbidity, when someone has more than one condition, is very common when someone suffers from mental illness and substance abuse (Whitbourne & Halgin, 2013). Ralph Tortorici had a substance abuse problem and was diagnosed with extreme depression, fixed delusion accompanied by suspiciousness, delusional disorder, and with schizophrenic paranoid type. He was deemed incompetent to stand trial by a court appointed psychiatrist. He was later deemed competent to stand trial because his condition seemed to improve while he was in a psychiatric ward. To be competent in the state of New York, he must understand the charges against him, and help in his own defense (Frontline, 2014).
Understanding Psychology and Crime; Perspectives on Theory and Action, New York. PENNINGTON, D ( 2002) , Introducing Psychology: Approaches, Topics and Methods, London, Hodder Arnold TANNENBAUN, B, (2007),Profs link criminal behaviour to genetics [online] , Available at: http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2007/11/profs_link_criminal_behavior_to_genetics [accessed 16th October 2011]. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/41182390/Explanations-of-Criminal-behaviour